newenglandshawn

Awesome! Thanks for the feedback. As I said, I think I would be inclined to include it for Div School/Schools of Theology, but probably not to other programs. Another area, though: when I was an undergrad, I was in choir, etc. Do you see any of these programs giving two hoots about such things? How much do we "pad" our CVs with extra-curricular stuff that ultimately has little relevance to a PhD/ThD program?

I'm just curious about what others include in their CV when applying to doctoral programs. I'm specifically wondering about one's writing history. I've written a lot for "popular" audiences (including two books, published by denominational publishers), but I'm wondering whether including these types of things would be viewed as sophomoric, irrelevant - or helpful. Just to clarify: I am planning to apply to PhD/ThD programs that may have diverse attitudes towards this sort of thing (e.g., the ThD program at Duke Divinity may find it a little more relevant than the PhD program at Harvard). So perhaps I could submit a different CV to the different types of programs? Or maybe I should just avoid including these types of things altogether? PS. I may or may not have asked this same question on here before - I can't remember (and you can't do a search that has fewer than three letters - thus "CV" can't be searched)!

Yeah, I think the anonymous poster - who wouldn't explain anything further in a private message - just had an ax to grind. I am hardly qualified to speak about Professor Levenson's character since I'm not at HDS and have never met him in person, but in the 3-4 e-mails we have exchanged, he has been not only pleasant, but extremely prompt in his responses. So it's too bad that someone can throw out this claim while refusing to substantiate it.

Not quite. While a person may think Scripture is inerrant, this doesn't necessarily mean he/she believes his/her interpretation of it is. I can readily posit that I believe the Bible is the word of God, while also maintaining that I come to it with my biases and presuppositions (seeking, of course, to ultimately arrive at its true meaning). Again, as I hinted at before, there are different levels of inerrantists, so I would hesitate to paint with a broad brush.

I know this is going to sound crazy, but one of my OT professors, who did his doctoral work at a Top Tier program, said that in many regards he would have preferred to do his doctoral work at an evangelical school because it would have given him a broader education (admittedly, he was/is evangelical). This is because at the Top Tier program, they only considered one set of data, and did not even consider (nevermind take seriously) any other sets of data. At many of the evangelical institutions he is familiar with, however (including the one at which he taught), they considered multiple sets of data and took them seriously. Thus, not only do they do serious work from an "inerrancy" perspective (though I hesitate to use the term because it means different things to different people), but they take seriously the work done by those who do not believe in inerrancy. This, again, makes for a "broader" education in his opinion. I know this sounds laughable to those who find the evangelical approach absurdly untenable, and the "inerrancy" bias the chiefest among biases (which I disagree with), but his take was one I found enlightening.

This discussion is getting a little far afield, but this point is funny to me. It all depends on which biases you are committed to. There are plenty of people who have studied the question of Pentateuchal authorship who have come to the conclusion that it is "pretty decisive" that Moses wrote it. Now, again, that may seem absurd to those who think it's very decisive in the other direction; but, again, that speaks to a person's presuppositions more than anything else - in my opinion. It's very easy to say that the "preponderance" of evidence overwhelmingly favors one side, and then when presented with a whole lot of data that contradicts that conclusion to then say, "Well, those people who arrived at that conclusion have their biases and can't be taken seriously anyway." It's like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I have had professors who believed in Mosaic authorship who were more than willing - and did - study in doctoral programs who vehemently opposed that perspective. So it's not the case of only people who won't study at programs that have faculty sign statements who maintain Mosaic authorship. Again, this has gotten a little far afield, but thanks for the discussion.

Again, who cares? And it cuts both ways. For every "Egyptologist" who won't study at programs that don't think Isis is divine, there are plenty of others who won't study at programs that do think Isis is divine. Or, if it isn't already evident, there are plenty of persons who will not study at institutions that have an inerrant view of Scripture - which means they are also narrowing the field. To say a priori that these individuals are more sincere in their pursuit of a PhD (because that is what getting a PhD is all about, after all) is begging the question.

This seems to be a very close-minded perspective. That a person might pursue a PhD for religious/theological reasons doesn't make his/her quest any less legitimate than a person who has more "secular" motives. The person who believes that there is a God who has revealed Himself through a Scriptural text has just as much right to approach doctoral studies from his/her agenda as a person who believes no such thing. We all come with our presuppositions and agendas. So if a person wants to approach Egyptology trying to validate their worship of Isis, why should we care?

This seems to go against everything else I've ever heard on here - and other places.

I need some advice on my writing sample. I have a paper I will be submitting that is about 20 pages long. Some schools to which I will be apply say that the writing sample should be less than 25 pages, while another says less than 30 pages. Should I add more to the paper to get closer to their maximum cut-off, or should I just submit it as-is? Similarly, a few of the schools say a maximum of 10 or 15 pages. What is the best way to trim the 20-page paper down? Should I just submit the first 10 pages, or try to edit it in an attempt to submit an abridged version?

Thanks! That advice is invaluable. I've been racking my brain a little to figure out how to write two SOPs with two different directions about the same POIs. Would love other people's take on this as well.

I'm sure I'm not the first person who's confronted this issue, but how do you approach your SOP when you are applying to two different programs in the same school, but the POI teaches in both programs? I will probably be applying to Harvard (both the ThD and PhD), Boston University (STH and GDR), and Duke (ThD and PhD), yet all those programs will have the same POIs within each school. So how do you customize your SOP for each program, given the fact that the POIs are the same?

Why should it make you angry, though? I would think it would be more angering if they were so nonchalant about the process but still got in - while someone such as yourself, who worked his tail off to get in, never did (assuming that were to happen at some point). On the other hand, what frustrates me to some extent (though not as much), is individuals who seem to live, eat, and breathe PhD preparation, as if they have absolutely nothing else to do in life - while some of the rest of us (such as myself) don't have the time to devote as much energy into the process at this stage. Of course, I'm doing plenty to prepare (and can get stressed out about it at times), even though I'm one of those underprivileged people who has been unable to procure anything beyond a single MDiv from one of those evangelical institutions. But I'm trying not to confuse my calling, profession, and academic future with my identity. I have more to live for than getting - or not getting - into any particular school. It's just a matter of perspective and where one's values (and value) really lies - at least for me (speaking nothing of any of your evangelical friends).

I definitely can't take a course this summer due to job and family commitments, plus financial limitations - but, more significantly, I'm at least four hours away from any summer language course (at least the cognate languages). However, there is an unaccredited evangelical college that's five minutes from me where I might be able to take a course in Aramaic this fall. We'll see!

Well, I'll be applying to OT/HB, and my languages are probably my greatest deficiency. So I guess even if I hit a grand slam on my GRE, they won't even notice because I'll already be weeded out. But there's not a whole lot I can honestly do at this point, besides brushing up on the languages I've already taken. I can't, after all, take any courses between now and when I apply. So, I'll just do the best I can, pay my $600+ to all the schools to which I'll be applying, and see if any doors open!

Wow! That is remarkable. You've motivated me to spend about another week studying for the quant section and then leave it at that. On the other hand, I'm assuming the rest of your application was quite robust?

Thanks for your input, everyone! I'm pretty optimistic that I can get my score up to 150 at least. In my practice exam, I scored a 142 (I know, that is horrible), but I didn't even answer 1/3rd of the questions and the other 2/3rds I was making very half-hearted attempts. I will do some studying over the next few weeks, but then try to utilize the remaining time to perfect my verbal comprehension. After I take the GRE in May, I will then turn my full attention to other areas (SOP, languages, etc.). As someone mentioned, if I were to put off the GRE until the fall so that I can study more for the quantitative, I would be wasting a lot of time that could be devoted elsewhere. So it's probably better to just get it over with faster and see where the chips fall. From what I've heard, you definitely want to be above the 90th percentile to be in that neighborhood (which, in the new scoring, is around 163, I think). Of course, if you can get upwards of 166+, I think you are sitting very pretty. Others can correct me, though!

I know this question is often brought up on here but I was wanting to get everyone's fresh perspective. I am due to take the GRE at the end of May. I'm feeling pretty good about the verbal section, but I am terrible at math. When I took a practice test, I only did about half of the quantitative section and didn't really bother with the rest. And now that I am studying for the exam, I am finding that the math concepts - which I have not dealt with in well over a decade - are not coming easily for me. I know many people say to not even bother with studying for the quantitative section, but I can't imagine that someone who gets below 150 (assuming I do if I don't study at all for it) has any chance of getting into a top program - especially if he/she has other deficiencies in the application (namely, languages). So, on an anecdotal level, what are some of the lower scores you've heard people get on the quantitative section and still get into a top program? Should I bother putting 3-5 weeks studying math, and then spend the rest of my time brushing up for the verbal (I'm feeling confident that I should be able to get in the mid-160s for the verbal)? Or should I just focus solely on the verbal and writing and not worry at all about the quantitative? I wish you could take the sections separately! I don't want to put off the verbal section until the fall, but I wouldn't mind more time to study the quantitative so I can actually learn the concepts.

So how did they switch you over to the other field, even though you applied to Theology? I would assume that if one is trying to go into Biblical Studies (OT) like I am, I'm not sure what type of "less competitive field" I could attempt to apply to that has any overlap (except for, say, Theology - which is, of course, a competitive field as well).

I think this is a great question that I have thought about. I've read books from potential POIs from 20 years ago, as well as within the last 5 years - but these are obviously not their current research areas. And, from what I've been reading, we shouldn't necessarily discuss their research from 20 years ago in our SOP - even though, in my case, the book from 20 years ago overlaps greatly with some of my interests.

This may seem like an ignorant question, but does James Crenshaw still teach at Duke? And, if so, does he take PhD students? I see that you can find him on the Duke website (http://religiousstudies.duke.edu/people?subpage=profile&Gurl=/aas/Religion&Uil=james.crenshaw), but there isn't much information about him beyond that - and he's not listed on any other faculty pages, etc.

Yes, please do!! That would be huge for me. It seems as though there is some intersection with your area of interest with mine as well (HB/OT), so that would be extra helpful.

My main question about the SOP is how on earth are you supposed to start the thing? What do you write for the introduction? How do you grab the attention of admissions in the first few lines (without seeming over the top, of course)? I always struggle with my introduction of any piece of literature I'm writing (papers, articles, sermons). So getting off the launch pad is my issue, and any incite into this would be greatly appreciated!

Someone in admissions had told me this past fall that that was a strong possibility - and likelihood. So has this been definitively decided upon?

BU? Also, my alma mater - Andrews University - offers a ThD that is definitely "purely academic," though I'm sure most people on here would balk at me even mentioning it in the same breath as Harvard!